An interesting case from Canada.
A group of parishioners in British Columbia were
seeking independence from the mainstream Anglican Church of Canada over
what they saw as its anti-Christian trends. Mr. Justice Stephen Kelleher of the
British Columbia Supreme Court issued a mixed decision saying that the four
parishes in the Vancouver area may not keep their buildings if they remove
themselves from the jurisdiction of the ACoC. Nevertheless, the court
ruled, the bishop of New Westminster did not have the right under civil or canon
law to fire the trustees of the parishes. The two sides, he said, are going to
have to work out their difficulties outside the courts.

An interesting case where it has been
suggested by a Court that the Canadian Law prohibiting Polygamy may be contrary
to the Canadian Charter of Rights. This is based on earlier cases in
Canada,Reference re Same-Sex Marriage
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79which agreed that the common law
definition of marriage as being the Union of One Man and One Woman discriminated
against same sex couples. The unintended consequence of that decision is
that it leads wide open the question "what is marriage" and if a Union between
one man and one woman is not lgally valid what is wrong with a union between one
man and numerous women ?

A strange case where the Privy
Council agreed with an earlier decision of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago
that a particular award "The Trinity Cross of the Order of Trinity" was
discriminatory to Muslims and Hindus under the provisions of sections 4(b), (d)
and (h) of the Trinidadian Constitution on the basis that the Cross is a Christian Symbol. The name
"Trinidad" is of course itself Christian being the Spanish for "Trinity" and
therefore a reference to the Holy Trinity. The case could conceivably have
implications for British awards such as the Victoria Cross, George Cross,
Military Cross etc. Interestingly both the Trinidadian Court and the Privy
Council took a very different approach to that of the US Courts in the case of
American Atheists Inc v Utah Highway Patrol Association (US District
Court November 20 2007) where an attempt to have
memorial crosses declared "unconstitutional" because they represented a
Christian Symbol was rejected, the court holding that the cross was not an
exclusively religious symbol

A compendium decision by the
European Court of Human Rights merely confirming the earlier case of Dogru and
Mann Singh and accepting the French Ban on the wearing of religious symbols or
clothing in schools or in certain other public situations

Dahlab v.
Switzerland, Application No.42393/98, (PDF Judgement)(A Swiss primary school teacher
dismissed for refusing to work without her hijab. The court decided that this
dismissal was not a breach of Article 9 because it was aimed at
"protecting the rights and freedoms of others", namely young children. The hijab
was a 'powerful external symbol',
connected to proselytism and irreconcilable with gender
equality)

Refah Partisi v Turkey - BAILII: [2003] ECHR
87Refah
Partisi v Turkey - BAILII: [2001] ECHR 495 ( A European Court of Human Rights
Case supporting the banning of an "Islamist" political party in Turkey. In para
123 of the 2003 decision the Court agreed with the following statement, in para
72 of the 2001 decision, regarding Sharia Law and Democracy "It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human
rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on Sharia, which clearly
diverges from Convention values")

An attempt to have memorial crosses
declared "unconstitutional" because they represented a Christian Symbol, the
court held that the cross was not an exclusively religious symbol and it
depended on the circumstances in which it was used. (An interesting sideline
mentioned in the judgement was the fact that in Utah the majority Christian
faith is Mormonism and the Mormon Church does not use the Cross as part of its
religious symbols or worship.)

Simpson v.
Chesterfield County(A case where the US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit held that a
County could refuse to allow a Witch (Wiccan) to conduct prayers before the
Council meeting)

Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)(An historically interesting case
where the US Supreme Court held that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
did not protect Mormons who wished to practice Polygamy in accordance with their
religion)